Review: The Monkey

Image courtesy of Neon.

Add Osgood Perkins' gory, death obsessed Stephen King adaptation "The Monkey" to the increasingly large pile of 2025 horror movies that featured elements I admired, even if the entire film didn't completely work for me. That list includes "Heart Eyes," "Companion," and "The Damned." Perkins' latest is more of a comedy (albeit a bloody one) than a straight-up horror movie and the only real suspense is who might survive.

"Everybody dies and that's life," one character in the film tells a young boy who has seen his share of trauma. And that pretty much is what "The Monkey" is about - that death is coming for all of us, and its timing is something beyond our control or comprehension, although most of us likely won't face the same gory deaths that the folks in this picture do.

Based on the King short story from the "Skeleton Crew" collection, "The Monkey" plays like a chapter of "Final Destination" by way of W.W. Jacobs' "The Monkey's Paw," but the increasingly grotesque body count is played more for laughs at the outrageousness of it all.

At the film's beginning, a father (Adam Scott) tries to return the titular object - a stuffed monkey with a drum and sticks as well as a creepy dead-eyed stare - to a pawn shop, but fails. His two sons - twins Hal and Bill Shelburne (played by Christian Convery as children and Theo James as adults) - are cursed to discover the object's horrific power at an early age as it first claims their mother and then pretty much anyone else who crosses their path.

Some years later, Hal is intentionally estranged from Bill, who bullied his brother when they were younger, as well as from his son, Petey (Colin O'Brien), whom he fears would be in danger should he be in any proximity to his father. Although it has been years since the monkey wreaked havoc, the bodies start piling up again and there's a plot twist as to why.

And boy, do the bodies pile up. People fall victim to beheading, evisceration, impaling, shotgun blasts to various parts of the body, being stung to death by wasps, electrocution, aneurysm, and being trampled by horses. All of this would have been significantly more disturbing if most of these preposterous deaths weren't played for laughs.

Perkins is a talented director and much of this film's success is due to this. His "The Blackcoat's Daughter" was a menacing thriller and last year's "Longlegs" was one of the best serial killer films of recent memory. 

So, while "The Monkey" is an amusing take on life's random cruelty, it feels like a bit of a step down from the director's most recent film. You might be amused by the film's outlandishness and there's a little more to it thematically than your typical horror movie, but it feels like more of a lark when weighed against this director's more somber and unsettling body of work.

Review: Becoming Led Zeppelin

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics. 

If you're interested in gossip or dirt about Led Zeppelin, then Bernard MacMahon's documentary "Becoming Led Zeppelin" is likely not for you. At one point, lead singer Robert Plant mentions that there were a "lot of drugs and girls" at one point during the band's meteoric rise, but that's about all you get in terms of the band's somewhat wild reputation.

If you're interested in the music of Led Zeppelin - which I am - then you'll likely get a lot out of this band-sanctioned documentary that interviews the three remaining members of the band (Plant, guitar virtuoso and band mastermind Jimmy Page and bassist John Paul Jones). There's some great concert footage, a fair amount of information about the group's members that you likely didn't know, and of course a lot of great music.

My only slight disappointment - and this is only a personal one, not having anything to do with the film or how it was made - is that the picture focuses solely on the band's beginning and, therefore, zeroes in primarily on their first two records. Of course, those two albums are rock 'n roll classics, but so are albums three through six, so it was a little disappointing that we didn't make it that far into the band's career during the film's two-hour running time.

But Martin Scorsese once said that cinema is the totality of everything that's on the screen - and so, in this case, focusing on Led Zeppelin's first 18 months is obviously a choice. But there are a lot of great tidbits of which I was completely unaware. For instance, I had no idea that early on Page predominately worked as a session musician, providing backup for Donovan and numerous others. I also had no clue that both Page and Jones are playing backup on the theme to the James Bond film, "Goldfinger."

Page and Jones had worked together and so had Plant and Bonham, who died in 1980 but whose archival interviews blend nicely with those of the other band members in terms of what's being discussed in this film. Page first saw success with The Yardbirds and then took over that band when Jeff Beck fled. At first, Led Zeppelin performed as a new iteration of The Yardbirds but, as we learn here, changed their name based on a suggestion by The Who's Keith Moon. Like I said, lots of interesting tidbits here. It also helps that all three of the film's living subjects are articulate and good storytellers. 

But the film's raison d'etre is the use of its concert footage, much of which - I believe - has never appeared in a documentary or been seen by a wide audience, other than those who were in attendance at the shows. So, there are some blistering live performances of "Whole Lotta Love," "Ramble On," "What Is and What Never Should Be," and "Dazed and Confused" as well as one of "Communication Breakdown" that seems to be bursting with manic energy. This is a movie you'll want to see in a theater with a good sound system. It's loud and may literally rattle you - but there's really no other way to experience it.

Review: I'm Still Here

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures.

Although it's set in early 1970s Brazil, director Walter Salles' Oscar-nominated "I'm Still Here" resonates in a profoundly disturbing way at this given moment. The film follows the story of the family of Rubens Paiva, a former congressman, after he is taken prisoner by the country's military dictatorship and his wife, Eunice (a fierce Fernanda Torres), searches for answers.

The film takes a long and patient approach to the material. Its length is meant to convey the long, arduous journey that Eunice and her five children went through as they waited for news of their husband and father. At one point in the narrative, Eunice and one of her daughters, Eliana (Luiza Kosovski), are taken in for questioning and Eunice languishes for what seems like weeks in a dank cell.

The reason for Rubens' arrest, despite that it has been years since he was involved in Brazilian politics, is that the country's dictatorship is seemingly rounding up anyone that it might deem to be a threat. There are accusations that Rubens was abetting terrorists, which Eunice sees as ludicrous, but her disinterested tormenters just keep repeating the same questions.

The film starts in 1970, skips ahead late in the film to 1995 when the Brazilian government began to release information on those who disappeared during those horrific days, and finally to a 2014 family reunion in which Eunice, still alive at age 85, seems haunted still, although we learn that she suffered from Alzheimer's later in life.

The film, which boasts gorgeous cinematography and a great soundtrack of Brazilian music as well as a terrific performance by Torres, is Salles' best since his 2004 "The Motorcycle Diaries," one of the better Che Guevara chronicles. And much like that film, "I'm Still Here" is about an educated individual who becomes politically active after witnessing first-hand the cruelty of politics.

Grounded by Torres' powerful performance, the film is an often nerve-wracking experience as it places us inside the household of a family whose patriarch has been disappeared by a corrupt political regime. There are a few dramatic moments - the scene in which Rubens is arrested is pretty tense and the sequences in the police barracks where Eunice is kept while questioned are scary - but the film's overall tone does a great job of capturing the devastating effect of not knowing. 

We see the years pass and while the family, due to its determination to stick together and their becoming activists in one form or fashion, gradually heals, all the while we know that below the surface they continue to suffer from not knowing the truth. Salles' film, which was a surprise Best Picture nominee at this year's Oscars, is a powerful political drama about a terrifying subject at a moment in time that is also greatly unsettling. 

Review: Heart Eyes

Image courtesy of Screen Gems.

Obviously inspired by the "Scream" films and blending the genre that Wes Craven's film revitalized with the rom com, "Heart Eyes" is a gory thriller that also doubles as a love story between two advertising copywriters. The film takes its love story seriously, while also not skimping on the gore, which it has in abundance.

Although its central story is somewhat half baked - and its ultimate explanation during the final scene is even more so - the premise is that a serial killer known as Heart Eyes targets young couples in love on Valentine's Day and hacks them to pieces. 

The picture opens at a winery where an obnoxious man is attempting to propose to an equally obnoxious woman, although both of them are prioritizing whether the moment is adequately caught by a photographer snapping photos from the woods. Needless to say, their moment is literally cut short.

In Seattle, a young ad copywriter named Ally (Olivia Holt) is struggling at her job after her difficult boss doesn't like her ad concept about doomed love - she references "Titanic," "Bonnie and Clyde," and "Romeo and Juliet" - to sell fancy rings. 

Earlier in the day, Ally has a Meet Cute with a smooth and charming fellow named Jay (Mason Gooding) at a coffee shop. However, she is none too pleased when she realizes that he's a star copywriter who has been brought in to fix her campaign. They don't exactly hit it off.

But that doesn't prevent the Heart Eyes Killer - who is in town for Valentine's Day to wreak havoc - from picking the duo to be among his victims after he sees them kiss. Unbeknownst to the killer, the kiss only occurred to make Ally's ex-boyfriend jealous after they bump into him while exiting a restaurant on Feb. 14.

Most of the film involves Ally and Jay - who are seemingly more resourceful than the other couples who are easy prey for the killer - attempting to escape Heart Eyes' clutches, while numerous others do not. This leads to beheadings, eye gouging, an inventive murder of a couple coupling in the back of a van, and multiple stabbings.

For the most part, "Heart Eyes" is fun and breezy on the rom com side and somewhat icky on the horror side. It's clever enough and Holt and Gooding have good chemistry. There's somewhat of a twist involving Heart Eyes' identity and while I could see that coming, I was underwhelmed when the killer gives the speech about the modus operandi. Truth be told, it's a little lame.

That being said, "Heart Eyes" is a mostly amusing blending of two genres that don't typically mesh. If it's a success, it'll likely face the endless parade of sequels that this type of film tends to generate. For now, at a moment when there's a glut of gory horror movies, this one is slightly better than average.

Review: Companion

Image courtesy of New Line Cinema.

How much do we want to humanize AI? Do we want our computers and gadgets thinking for themselves? Some of the lazier variety, perhaps, want the items they own to anticipate the need, so to speak, thereby making humans almost useless - which, come to think of it, is what AI might end up doing anyway.

These questions are not exactly pondered in Drew Hancock's "Companion," a film that I must refer to as a horror movie, even though it's not particularly frightening, even while it's often gory and isn't funny enough to be considered a comedy. But they are thoughts that I pondered afterward.

I'm not going to be able to discuss the movie at any length without giving away a major spoiler - assuming that it even is one at this point - but you've been warned. In the film, a guy who the filmmakers want you to believe is a nice one, Josh (Jack Quaid), but who you secretly know probably isn't, takes his seemingly docile girlfriend, Iris (Sophie Thatcher), to a secluded cabin for a weekend getaway.

They are joined there by a woman named Kat (Megan Suri), who seemingly doesn't like Iris, as well as a creepy Russian named Sergey (an unrecognizable Rupert Friend), and a gay couple - Eli (Harvey Guillen) and Patrick (Lukas Gage). Something seems off from the beginning, especially when Josh tells Sergey that he's welcome to spend the morning at the beach alone with Iris, while he and Kat remain at the house where they're all staying.

A death occurs and it comes out that - in case you hadn't guessed it - Iris is a robot, albeit a lifelike one who dotes on the every need of its companion and has sex with them. But there's a plot afoot among some of the characters and Iris is quickly seen as a liability - and a scapegoat - in the scenario. Josh tries to shut her down but she escapes, and spends much of the rest of the film trying to stay away from the other characters and, in some instances, being captured and abused by them.

There's clearly something to be said in this film about toxic masculinity. Josh naturally thinks he's a good guy, despite the overwhelming evidence that he is not - and he treats women poorly, regardless of whether they're human beings or robots. 

But while "Companion" could have also had something to say about whether it's a good idea to give robots minds of their own - as the "Terminator" films did - this one is clearly in the AI's corner because Iris is more likable than the horrendous Josh or Sergey. Instead, there's simply a lot of plotting involving how Iris - and another character who is a robot - can be programmed or deprogrammed. 

"Companion" is amusing enough, and yet it's not quite enough, considering the topics it covers at this particular point in time. It has a few good laughs and it's occasionally gruesome, but the manner in which it addresses a capitalistic society in which everything is commodified, toxic masculinity, or the dangers of AI are mostly window dressing. The film has its moments, but I feel that it could have been more.